Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ...
Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ... Alternative Energy Draft EA - NASA Visitor Center at Wallops Flight ...
Environmental Consequences projects (listed above in Section 4.5) using conservative assumptions to create worst case scenarios. Site preparation (i.e., earth moving and soil disturbance) and wind erosion for the projects would result in various amounts of fugitive particulate (i.e., dust) emissions (PM10 and PM2.5). The amount of fugitive dust emissions would depend on numerous factors, such as: the degree of vehicular traffic; amount of exposed soil; soil moisture content; and wind speed. Construction activities would create combustion product (tailpipe) emissions (mostly PM, NOX, and CO) from vehicles (e.g., contractor personally owned vehicles, delivery trucks, heavy construction equipment), and temporary non-road equipment powered by internal combustion engines. BMPs (e.g., dust suppression, establishment of lower speed limits in construction areas) and legal requirements (i.e., use of low sulfur fuel, anti-idling regulations) would be implemented during each project to minimize and mitigate those emissions to the maximum extent practicable. Criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources associated with the WFF projects listed in Table 29 would be short-term, negligible, and localized. The operational phases of these projects would produce similar criteria pollutant emissions on an annual basis, although only the first year of operational emissions was estimated. BMPs (e.g., use of alternative fueled vehicles at WFF) and installation of the two wind turbines proposed for the Alternative Energy Project would help minimize criteria pollutant emissions locally. In addition, a positive impact in a regional reduction in criteria pollutant emissions could result from the decreased use of fossil fuels during the production of electricity at the electric power generation plant that currently supplies WFF. Table 29: WFF Cumulative Project Criteria Pollutant Emissions in Tons Project CO NOX VOC PM10 SOX Wallops Research Park Data Unavailable 1 UAS Airstrip 31 62 12 66.1 6 Alternative Energy Project 2.5 3.8
Environmental Consequences Although cumulative impacts from all construction related and operational activities are anticipated to be minimal, WFF is in the process of decentralizing the Central Boiler Plant/steam system with individual propane-fired boilers. Table 30 provides the estimated emissions reduction resulting from this action. Table 30: Emissions Reduction Resulting from Central Boiler Plant Decentralization in Tons Pollutant 2007 Emissions Proposed Emissions After Decentralization Percent Change CO 1.86 2.6 39% increase NOX 17.8 4.55 74% reduction PM 1.2 0.25 79% reduction SOX 27
- Page 118 and 119: Environmental Consequences The inst
- Page 120 and 121: Alternative Two Environmental Conse
- Page 122: Environmental Consequences The func
- Page 125 and 126: Environmental Consequences Based on
- Page 127 and 128: Environmental Consequences Table 22
- Page 129 and 130: Environmental Consequences Based on
- Page 131 and 132: Alternative One Environmental Conse
- Page 133 and 134: Environmental Consequences conceiva
- Page 135 and 136: Environmental Consequences wetland
- Page 137 and 138: Environmental Consequences of magni
- Page 139 and 140: Environmental Consequences is the a
- Page 141 and 142: Environmental Consequences (TREC).
- Page 143 and 144: Environmental Consequences why bats
- Page 145 and 146: Environmental Consequences determin
- Page 147 and 148: Environmental Consequences While a
- Page 149 and 150: Gull-Billed Tern Environmental Cons
- Page 151 and 152: Environmental Consequences In addit
- Page 153 and 154: Environmental Consequences staff. T
- Page 155 and 156: Proposed Action Aboveground Resourc
- Page 157 and 158: Alternative One Aboveground Resourc
- Page 159 and 160: 4.4.4 Transportation No Action Alte
- Page 162 and 163: This page intentionally left blank.
- Page 164 and 165: Environmental Consequences site tha
- Page 166 and 167: Environmental Consequences 2) Placi
- Page 170 and 171: Environmental Consequences Although
- Page 172 and 173: 4.6 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND APPROVAL
- Page 174 and 175: Mitigation and Monitoring 5.2.1 Pos
- Page 176 and 177: Mitigation and Monitoring would be
- Page 178 and 179: This page intentionally left blank.
- Page 180 and 181: Agencies, Organizations, and Person
- Page 182 and 183: NASA WFF Technical Library Building
- Page 184 and 185: Name Organization Other Organizatio
- Page 186 and 187: References Cohen, J.B., S. Karpanty
- Page 188 and 189: References Kunz, T.H., E.B. Arnett,
- Page 190 and 191: References Richardson, D.L. 1992. H
- Page 192 and 193: References USFWS. 2009c. Northeaste
Environmental Consequences<br />
projects (listed above in Section 4.5) using conserv<strong>at</strong>ive assumptions to cre<strong>at</strong>e worst case<br />
scenarios.<br />
Site prepar<strong>at</strong>ion (i.e., earth moving and soil disturbance) and wind erosion for the projects would<br />
result in various amounts of fugitive particul<strong>at</strong>e (i.e., dust) emissions (PM10 and PM2.5). The<br />
amount of fugitive dust emissions would depend on numerous factors, such as: the degree of<br />
vehicular traffic; amount of exposed soil; soil moisture content; and wind speed. Construction<br />
activities would cre<strong>at</strong>e combustion product (tailpipe) emissions (mostly PM, NOX, and CO) from<br />
vehicles (e.g., contractor personally owned vehicles, delivery trucks, heavy construction<br />
equipment), and temporary non-road equipment powered by internal combustion engines.<br />
BMPs (e.g., dust suppression, establishment of lower speed limits in construction areas) and<br />
legal requirements (i.e., use of low sulfur fuel, anti-idling regul<strong>at</strong>ions) would be implemented<br />
during each project to minimize and mitig<strong>at</strong>e those emissions to the maximum extent practicable.<br />
Criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources associ<strong>at</strong>ed with the WFF projects listed in<br />
Table 29 would be short-term, negligible, and localized.<br />
The oper<strong>at</strong>ional phases of these projects would produce similar criteria pollutant emissions on an<br />
annual basis, although only the first year of oper<strong>at</strong>ional emissions was estim<strong>at</strong>ed. BMPs (e.g.,<br />
use of altern<strong>at</strong>ive fueled vehicles <strong>at</strong> WFF) and install<strong>at</strong>ion of the two wind turbines proposed for<br />
the <strong>Altern<strong>at</strong>ive</strong> <strong>Energy</strong> Project would help minimize criteria pollutant emissions locally. In<br />
addition, a positive impact in a regional reduction in criteria pollutant emissions could result<br />
from the decreased use of fossil fuels during the production of electricity <strong>at</strong> the electric power<br />
gener<strong>at</strong>ion plant th<strong>at</strong> currently supplies WFF.<br />
Table 29: WFF Cumul<strong>at</strong>ive Project Criteria Pollutant Emissions in Tons<br />
Project CO NOX VOC PM10 SOX<br />
<strong>Wallops</strong> Research Park D<strong>at</strong>a Unavailable 1<br />
UAS Airstrip 31 62 12 66.1 6<br />
<strong>Altern<strong>at</strong>ive</strong> <strong>Energy</strong> Project 2.5 3.8
Change language